Thursday, April 10, 2014

Libertarianism Vs. Pseudo-Libertarianism

In response to an earlier post HERE, Countenance wrote:

1. What is this need we have to trade off amnesty of current illegals for border security? That's considered good? How about deportation and border security?

2. One nagging problem I have with this missive is that whoever wrote it only seems to be interested in immigration control because he wants to save an abstract ideology. I'm interested in immigration control to save a particular group of people, who then will adopt whatever ideology they want or mix of ideologies they want to fulfill their needs. Why should we do immigration control to save libertarianism when libertarianism is all about race denial and flat out opposes immigration control? The better idea is ditch libertarianism and have immigration control in order to save white America.

And I'll try to answer:

As for #1, he's absolutely correct. Compromise with evil is itself evil, some would argue more evil, because in many cases, like the one described, it's just a Trojan horse. Border security is necessary and desirable, and shouldn't be linked with something idiotic, like amnesty. Amnesty, by its very nature, encourages more illegal immigration.

For #2, I'll answer in two parts: First, this blog is to some extent a missionary effort to libertarians. Libertarians have flaws in their thinking, but part of their thinking is good, insofar as it echoes some basic Western values in general, and American values in particular. The libertarian economic critique is valid for economics, and the problem with it is that they run it into the ground, elevating economics above all other things. In a way, they're like physicians who understand how a human body runs mechanically, but ignore the non-physical aspects of humanity. This leads them to apply free-market economics where it doesn't belong. Anyhow, this is one reason I talk about freedom a lot, because it is the main focus of libertarians. Starting from there, I try to lead them into a deeper understanding of actual reality, and how freedom can function within it.

Second, freedom is a basic part of Western civilization and its subset, American civilization. What we have to realize, as in the quote above, is that freedom has prerequisites. You can't have it in a society full of people who don't understand the idea of it, who have no concept of civil responsibility, and have no sense of nationhood. Insofar as it's an abstraction, it's counterproductive. True, peoples can borrow cultural concepts from one another, but it's rare, difficult, and takes a long time. For example, despite being knocked hell-west-and-crooked by WWII and its aftermath, the Japanese are pretty much the same people they were before. The virtues and defects they had before, they still have. True, they've borrowed a lot of notions from the West, but they were already doing that before, because they're the kind of people who do that sort of thing.

Americans are a curmudgeonly lot, wanting to make their own decisions, spend their own money, run their own businesses, own their own weapons, and raise their own kids. That's what libertarianism is, and so it's part of our fabric. Libertarianism is not race denial and open borders. That's liberal/neocon contamination, and I'm determined to cleanse the libertarian movement of it. It's hard to imagine anything more destructive to American freedom than those two ideas. The naive notion that you can teach other peoples —nonWhite, nonWestern peoples — to be free is almost always wrong and futile, and in the end, self-destructive. Everybody from Alexander the Great to the Brits to the Russians to us, for example, have tried to coerce Afghans not to be Afghans, for quite a few centuries, and they're still Afghans. Those of us with White, Christian backgrounds can be free people, others can't. They don't want to, and when confronted with American freedom (or French or British or Italian freedom, for that matter) they view it as license and an opportunity to feast at a trough that somebody else keeps filled. Americans have freedom as part of their makeup. If they want to modify it, ring changes on it, or limit it for good reasons, fine. What they must not do is destroy themselves as a people.

We are the libertarians. The ditzes who claim the name, from pot-heads to miscegenationists to internationalists to globalists to Bill Maher, are just a variant of liberalism. See the Notorious Venn Diagram.

Well, all that should at least start the discussion. Bring it on.
Quibcag: I've been waiting some time to use this illustration. The quote could have referred to electricity or many other advanced engineering or scientific accomplishments, but "plumbing" was just right for the illustration, which is Machiko Mai, of Maicching Machiko-sensei (まいっちんぐマチコ先生?, lit. "The Shame of Miss Machiko"). Here's the opening to the Anime:


  1. From your second part, you do realize that 99% of official libertarians will not only want nothing to do with you, but denounce you as a racist Nazi fascist collectivist, don't you?

    If you have some sort of rhetorical power or powers of persuasion to be able to convince people who hate us to start advocating for us, then go for it. I'll throw you a parade if you're successful. I'm not optimistic about your prospects, though.

    A few other points:

    1. If your horse dies, you don't waste time trying to talk him back to life. You give him your last respects, leave him wherever he fell, then go find a live horse. Your trying to convince libertarians to quit being so libertarian is like trying to wish your dead horse back to life. You said it yourself, that the forces of evil have taken over libertarianism, so let them have it and move on to something else.

    2. It's not a good idea to try to blend ethnonationalism with libertarianism or try to justify ethnonationalism in libertarian terms or sell ethnonationalism as a means to save libertarian ends. That only creates a grab bag of moral and political contradictions and paradoxes. Most who try to do this, thanks to cultural Marxist pressure, will deny ethnonationalism and embrace libertarianism. The best thing to do is go with pure ethnonationalism then let everything else, including ideology and economics, fall into place. Even if what "falls into place" isn't much at all libertarian.

    3. H.L. Mencken once said that the average American (and he was thinking of white people) would trade the Constitution and all their freedom for a new Ford. I'm not so convinced the average person, even the average white person, wants real freedom. Let me put it to you this way: People will willingly live under a brutal totalitarian dictatorship rather than see Social Security checks be $1 a month less this year than last year. So what to do? Don't force people to choose between a dictatorship and Social Security. Ditch economic libertarianism in favor of a mixed socio-capitalist system, meld it with the parts of what you call "libertarianism" (but aren't really) that people can get behind, all underneath ethnonationalism.

    4. Modern libertarianism is about race denial, so much so that it's the sine qua non.

    1. Damn good stuff. I'll probably make a post out of it all by itself. I think you're mostly right. I'll try to pull a Hegelian synthesis, somehow.

    2. It never fails. The stuff I actually put a lot of time and effort into writing, everyone shrugs off. The stuff that just rolls of my fingers, stuff that I hurry up and write, everyone but me thinks is so brilliant. I'm now 37 and it's been that way since I was 14.